Watch the lengths they’ll go to. Now it’s sure, there’s a link (under-*)reported by the victims themselves between being raped as a child and being ‘gay’ as an adult, but we can’t prove causation. We’re not, like, social scientists.

As for saying there’s no link to orientation, well, technically that is true because orientation theory is Victorian bullshit picked up by Kinsey to justify University expenses on rentboys. Yeah, gay ones. Twinks, apparently.

Fact: Nothing in the definition of homosexuality (<3%) mentions age.
From the only study I can find to dare measure this, mentioned here with other data, ~30% child abusers are homosexually-oriented (quantifiably, their proven targets/victims were the same sex). That’s a whole order of magnitude at least, it’s significant. Nobody studies it. People who moan about this fact and worse, try to suppress it, are more offended by truth/facts than they are about rape. I said it.
Orientation theory means nothing without behaviour. If the facts are denied, the distinctions cannot be made. Orientation theory is unfalsifiable, identity is a self-involved delusion. It’s magical thinking to believe asserting X makes Y more likely in the outer world. If you didn’t feel attraction to A, you couldn’t sexually perform.

I love how they believe criminal lies where sexuality is involved. The pedophiles have a vested interest in getting a reduced sentence.

Like, rape isn’t about attraction but they magically got an erection.

Like, they didn’t choose the kid based on the sex, but they did choose that kid/s and none of the opposite sex. If only they cared so much about the child’s choice (always no, they are legally incapable of consent).

Are we meant to believe psychopaths when they say they’re harmless now? Why do these people (who rely on the consent of pedophiles to make their living interviewing them) lose all rationality when dealing with the consequences of other’s sexuality? It’s like they’re incapable of admitting there’s such a thing as bad sexuality.

They sympathize with the monsters (Real Victim card). The maternal (often paternal) instinct is misdirected to the adult criminal, instead of the formerly innocent child whose life they ruined. This is why pedophiles pretend they are still mentally children (diminished responsibility, lower sentencing) but it doesn’t occur to a child to have sex, let alone rape. They pretend to be scarred and traumatized themselves, yet somehow believe in spite of that claim causing the same suffering in another is justified? GTFO.

Feminists are happy to blame men for plenty of things, but remain strangely silent on pedophilia, which explains Rotherham neatly. The stark majority of pedophiles are men, well over 90% (similar to rape rates), and I haven’t seen MRAs try to deny this fact while casually decrying (exclusively female) feminist teachers as child abusers.

r u bein serious rn

Maths says you’re wrong. The male teachers, on solely the basis of sex, are more likely to fit the forensic profile of child abuser.

And where the admitted link between homosexuality and former abuse as a child is concerned, it’s like they all magically forget another known admitted link in behaviour called the cycle of abuse. As if pedophiles don’t recruit. What do they think half of grooming is about? One half, making the kid think they wanted rape and other half, cultish indoctrination.

It isn’t an argument that goes both ways like how they twist it in academese. A recipe bakes a cake, the cake doesn’t unbake the recipe. Nobody is saying all homosexuals are pedophiles, but by definition, if someone meets a rare (1-3%) criterion for the criminal profile of a pedophile, they are statistically more likely to be one. The same as how a drunk driver is statistically more likely to kill someone. A male fan of Celine Dion is more likely to be interested in man-meat.

Still, no one looks into the microbiome and how it informs sexual behaviour, because Gay Germ Theory is crazy, right?

And it’s not just the skin that envelops the male sexual organ that’s inhabited by microbes:

can you say weeping sores?

researchers continue to identify bacteria that dwell within the urogenital tract, a site once considered sterile in the absence of infection.

A short, sharp HA! in your general direction.

Some of the anaerobes commonly found on the uncircumcised penis and on occasion inside the male urogenital tract are the same species associated with bacterial vaginosis (BV) in women, said Liu, lending support to the idea that male and female sexual partners share genital microbiota.

Almost all of the surveyed men who were predominantly or exclusively gay were circumcised. This does not imply that circumcision tends to predispose men to homosexuality!

It literally does. If you have evidence against, go for it.

There were two factors at work here. In the Net group gay men were mostly North American, and therefore likely to be circumcised.

That can be controlled for but assuming it was because you didn’t express otherwise, the prevalence still suggests a link.

Among the Australians only half were done as infants (the same as for our sample as a whole) – but most of the others had later had to be cut, because of infections under the foreskin. Gut bacteria are the commonest cause of these infections, and anal sex (in the pre safe-sex days when this survey was done) is one way these bacteria can get under the foreskin. So it is infections, rather than preference, that accounts for the scarcity of uncircumcised gay men.

Imagine taking a course of antibiotics and suddenly finding that your sexual preferences have changed.

Imagine if a specific infection reaches the brain during childhood pre-pubertal development #gaygerm

“This idea was dramatically confirmed when he gave the insects a dose of antibiotics. Immediately, their sexual bias disappeared and they were just as likely to mate with flies from either group.”

What if the lower number of gay people in modernity is due to all the antibiotics in the food?

Wouldn’t that be ironic?

You wanted ‘clean’ food, right California?

“It’s possible that the bacteria influence the levels of sex pheromones that affect the fly’s attractiveness, either by producing those chemicals themselves or stimulating the fly to do the same. That’s not too far-fetched: bacteria can alter the smells given off by many animals, and smell certainly affects sexual behaviour…. Antibiotics brought the levels of these chemicals down to similar levels.”

But remember, questioning the Pink Mafia makes you anti-science.

The science is settled TM.

For the MGTOWetc who’ll dispute any of this and continue to misuse Muh Evolution as if they were born with XYZ and choice never factors into the matter of sexual consent (scoff).

In any case, the study suggests that you can’t understand an animal’s evolution simply by considering the evolutionary pressures that act on its genome. You also have to consider the genes of the bacteria and other passengers that live inside it, which also create variations in its behaviour and affect is chances of survival. Sharon calls this the hologenome – the combined genes of a host and all the microbes it contains.